In the latest non-shocking financial survey conducted by Bankrate, we find that roughly a quarter of respondents said they had NO emergency savings. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. A further 25 percent had less than three months’ worth of expenses saved, so altogether, about half of respondents had less than three months of expenses saved up.

A cursory glance of my “Statistics” category of previous posts tells me that the dismal figures Bankrate reports here aren’t far off from what we’ve seen from other sources lately.

Also from the poll: Among those earning $75k or more per year, only 46 percent have at least six months’ worth of expenses saved.

Readers know that I love polls and stats like these, but gosh darn, how come these polls never seem to ask the ancillary question: For those with any savings, how much are they also carrying in revolving credit-card debt?

Because something tells me that if these same respondents divulged THAT as well, then their “true cash savings” would emerge … and savings rates would be significantly worse.

We just keep coming back to the same dismal stats on savings, over and over again. This time, the 2014 Scorecard from the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) informs us that, among other tidbits, 44 percent of us have less than three months’ worth of savings tucked away.

The figures aren’t far off from those released in June of 2013 in a similar report from U.S. News. We hit the same savings ballpark in an Allstate survey, too.

From a summary article:

Nearly half (44%) of households in the United States are “liquid asset poor,” meaning they have less than three months’ worth of savings — conservatively measured as $5,887 for a family of four, or three times monthly income at the poverty level.

I’m not sure what world these folks live in, but $5,887 doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to a reasonable measurement for a three-month cushion for a family of four. Which suggests to me that the figures are, in fact, really worse than what’s reported here.

CFED also says that one quarter (25%) of middle class households (those earning $56,113 to $91,356 annually) have less than three months of savings. In a related note, they divulge, about 56 percent of us have subprime credit scores. Also, in 2012, the average college debt level for graduates was $29,400.

You can grab a PDF copy of the 2014 report — chock full of fancy graphs, graphics, and (of course) admonitions for government-policy intervention — right here.

It’s that time of year again — the time where I wish my readers a great holiday season, and suggest that those who aren’t already doing it should make Christmas gift-giving a regular monthly bill. In other words, save up for it throughout the entire year.

Now, we save up for gifts (all of them — not just Christmas) every month inside our regular Freedom Account saving. We save up for gift-giving the same way we save up for our six-month car-insurance payments. I know about how much we spend each year on gifts, so I just take that amount, divide by 12, and set aside that much each month … same as we do for every other non-monthly, recurring bill.

For me personally, I cannot emphasize enough how much less stressful it’s made holiday budgeting and spending.

For those three or four folks who may be wondering what’s happened at this here money blog, well, the answer is: Not much.

If I had any gripping tales of financial abandon to tell, I’d do it. I scan the news every couple of days to see what’s going on in the world of personal finance; certainly nothing life-changing has popped up. (Well, ObamaCare is about to kick in. That ought to be good for a few million laughs. Or tears.)

The Federal Reserve is still doing its best to ensure that “saving” remains a four-letter word, that savers must be well and duly punished, and that stock markets cannot be allowed to drop more than a few percent at a clip. Nothing new there. This is what happens when you have an economy that “grows” only when debt expands and risk-asset prices rise. No “growth” if people/entities/governments don’t keep taking on more and more debt and risk. What could possibly go wrong?

On the personal front, our family savings got about $20k lighter in September. That’s what getting a new roof, new siding and windows throughout, and gutter installation will do to you. Until this month, the largest check I’d ever written was for our home central A/C system back in 2007. I can tell you that the A/C payment felt like a sneeze compared to the exterior repairs. However, we had well more than enough liquid savings to cover it, and I’m mighty thankful for that. (‘Tis also nice to pull up in your driveway each day after work and NOT cringe at the outward appearance of your home. The old homestead looks pretty nice now, if I do say so myself.)

And that’s my little roundup, for now. Back to your regularly-scheduled nap, kids!

No surprises here for followers of this blog: When you punish people for saving, you’re going to get less saving. When you reward people for blowing through every penny that hits the door, and then some, you’re going to have a nation of broke people.

But hey — as Bankrate tells us, “Americans are feeling very secure about their personal finances.” This, even though “… nearly half of those surveyed have less than three months’ worth of expenses, or nothing at all, in emergency savings.”

I’m not sure what sort of “security” these folks are aiming for, but it’s apparently one I’ve always tried to avoid.

What’s horrific? People borrowing money from their employers. Now, if your employer’s a bank, then hey, fine, whatever; it’s what they do. When all hell blows up on them, taxpayers pick up the tab, and no one much gives a crap after a year or so. (Especially if the stock market is tagging record highs.)

Outside of that, if your employer isn’t a bank or similar, then they shouldn’t be in the business of making loans. Just my opinion. That’s what banks, credit unions, pawn shops, check-advancers, and your neighborhood loan shark are for. Though of course it’s the employers’ money, and they can do with it what they want. (In the video, the employer is more “facilitating” the loans than they are “making” them. The loans are actually made by local credit unions, with interest rates in the 17 percent range.)

In my modest personal experience, watching how these sorts of employer-as-lender policies are treated in workplaces, I’ve found that even when these loans turn out well, they tend to be used by the same folks again, and again, and again. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that’s the goal.

The Part I Applaud

In the video, we’re told that the employers in question made an interesting policy tweak: Loan payments are withheld directly from employees’ paychecks over time, and once the loans are paid back, the default option is for employees to continue having those same amounts withheld, but deposited into savings accounts so that they begin building savings. Employees can opt out of this “forced” Baby Step #1, of course, but most (we’re told) do not.

This part of the plan, I adore.

By the time the loan is paid back, I’d imagine that you as employee would have at least a decent chance of realizing that you really COULD live without that small chunk of your paycheck. It wasn’t so hard, was it? Lo and behold, the saving you thought you could NEVER EVER do turns out to be achievable — cold, hard cash in a bank account. When the next little emergency pops up, perhaps you’ve got it covered.

(Though I’d argue that the peace of mind savings provides is probably worth as much as the actual money itself. And the less someone has experienced actual “saving,” the more important that peace of mind is.)

Given the context that’s presented in the PBS video, I might be willing to revisit my “Employers shouldn’t be making loans” stance. I could see where both parties really could benefit from such an arrangement.

EBRI’s 2013 survey tells us that half of workers reported having $25k or less in total savings and investments (not counting home equity and any defined-benefit plans). Twenty-eight percent have less than $1,000.

The site surveyed 1,100 folks. Of that, 41 percent said they have less than $500 in emergency funds or other liquid savings. These findings aren’t far off from a similar study done by the Wall Street Journal back in 2011, which reported that half of us couldn’t come up with $2,000 within a few weeks if necessary.

From the CreditDonkey article:

It’s not what you may think: This 41% is made up not only of people living at or below the poverty line. They are also dual-income earners with nice homes, nice cars, nice toys, a 401K retirement savings plan, big mortgages. and big credit card bills. But if they ever get into a bind and need some quick cash – say, because of a car breakdown or an unexpected doctor visit – they don’t have it.

What’d they expect? Everywhere we turn, the Powers That Be instruct us to “Spend it all,” lest we get left behind our neighbors who are already doing their part by living entirely for today. And that’s regardless of income level. The good news is that our government and all related entities are working diligently to make sure everything we need (food, energy, education, and all that) gets cheaper by the day. (You believe that, right?)

I remember reading something about Ms. Veitch and her still-chugging-along 1964 Mercury Comet recently. But whatever it was that I read, I certainly don’t remember her being presented as all that’s wrong with the American economy. Because that is, you know, the tongue-in-cheek gist of the article above.

And debt? Oh, we loves our debt. In fact, debt is a lot like The Force. It surrounds us, binds us. Debt is the ever-increasing glue which holds us all together. Even when we don’t have any money, we can keep spending money, because we can always get debt. Always. Well, except for 2007 and 2008 and part of 2009. Then we couldn’t get debt. And you saw how that went, didn’t you?

Oh, but Dark Siders, like Veitch, who save money and make full use of all their assets and take advantage of the deals and guarantee presented to them — well, these people are Communists and apparently don’t believe in the almighty goodness of Debt, Debt, and More Debt.

I disliked — nay, despised — the idea of my beloved ING Direct accounts falling under the stead of Capital One. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one:

Reactions to the $9.2 billion acquisition, which closed in mid-February, on social-media sites like Twitter from ING Direct customers were mostly negative, with many announcing they had already left ING Direct or were looking for alternatives.

What do I have against Capital One? Nothing tangible, really. They’ve not shafted me in the past on credit-card rates or anything. But, to be fair, it isn’t like I’ve done a TARP-load of business with them, either. Ahem.

Where Do We Go From Here?

ING Direct’s Orange Savings account was my first banking love, as it was for so many online savers. The idea of online-only savings and checking accounts never occurred to me until another blogger introduced me to ING Direct, and what I saw, I liked, right off the bat. ING Direct was different. They didn’t throw credit-card offers in my face every twelve minutes; they actually paid above-market rates on savings; they didn’t barrage me with ads for Christmas loans and nothing-down mortgages. (I suppose it should’ve been obvious, even then, that they were short-termers.)

All those positives will, I suspect, disappear in time, now that ownership has been, uh, reconfigured. Cap One will no doubt do everything it can to monetize those ING accounts. This hasn’t happened yet, of course, but just thinking about it saddens me. I really, really liked ING Direct.

When ING Direct came along, I actually thought maybe savers (read: tightwads) and banks could get along together okay — maybe even have something sort of “cool” going on, with any luck — but, as so often happens, reality has now set in. Savers don’t make money for banks; borrowers do. And so Capital One will plunge ahead with turning what’s left of ING’s savers into Capital One’s borrowers. Or, failing that, at least turn them into fee-payers.

Disclaimer: All information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. It's Your Money makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site. It's Your Money will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information, or for any damages arising from its display or use.